Is Britain Broken?
•
Page 3

Ajay wrote:
If you start making people pay for things which you personally don't approve of you're going a dangerous route.

We aren't suggesting that though are we - if someone goes out and gets shitfaced, and ends up having their stomach pumped, they should pay for that service.

It's not something I personally disapprove of (well I do, but it's not the reason why they should pay - they should pay, as they are needlessly taking emergency services away from someone who might really need it)

So using Ajay's examples, should someone who gets knocked out and swallows their tongue playing rugby have to pay for that treatment?

No - let's draw the line on people who get shitfaced pay for medical treatment they receive whilst in that state.

Although I think you could start with people intoxicated (eg: a certain amount of alcohol found in the blood, or other such measurement) paying for treatment, and then go from there if successful

Where do you draw the line, then? People who play casual sports know there's an element of risk of injury there, right? So we'll make them pay for any sporting injuries. Anyone who crosses the road and gets hurt away from a designated crossing point is taking their life into their own hands, so we'll have to make them pay too. Sounds fair?

If you start making people pay for things which you personally don't approve of you're going a dangerous route.

Exactly. Life is dangerous so should we tax the right to exist?

Drunks are an issue unto themselves, I dislike smokers too but there were figures not too long ago that suggested that smokers contribute more to NHS funding than they use. Nasty habit and they will suffer in the end, but the truth is - they are paying for it more or less. In more ways than one as well.

Besides, whilst smoking is a nasty habit that kills, at least we know it's more long-term exposure that causes higher risk. A drunk that gets violent or hits someone with a car or such like... the other person doesn't get a second chance to complain. It's crazy that booze is still so cheap, when I go out with my mates (I'm teetotal so I watch them get shitfaced) and I see offers on booze at a quid to £1.50, I'm like, "Wha? I'm paying more than that for MY fucking drinks!". When it's so bloody cheap on a Saturday night, is it any fucking wonder that people get totally shitfaced?

The things that need to be fixed are our attitudes, admittedly, but we can't tax everything. Though I do agree the price of some things should be much higher than they currently are.

My personal take is that we almost without exception all have at least one vice or do some reckless activity which might lead us to needing medical help, so why not just help each other out when the shit hits the fan for them?

The only difference is that their number came up this time rather than yours.

kincaide wrote:
I also think that people should pay for any medical treatment they receive whilst drunk/intoxicated

That doesn't sit well with my (admittedly not A&E) hippocratic oath, obviously there are a lot of legitimately sick (addict) people who will require treatment, and denying treatment is considered inhumane.

Moreover, the practical problems with this approach would be:

- people waiting to get treatment after they've sobered up; potentially costing more to the NHS to fix whatever the problem is;
- shifting the A&E rush hour from Friday/Saturday night to Saturday/Sunday mornings;
- completely unfair on those people who receive injuries through no fault of their own whilst intoxicated

As with anything, there are going to be grey areas. I know nobody goes out with the intention of harming themselves/others (well, usually) - but I believe there should be some sort responsibility placed upon people who take it upon themselves to get themselves in such a state of intoxication. There shouldn't be such a thing as a "A&E rush hour" at all.

kincaide wrote:
We aren't suggesting that though are we - if someone goes out and gets shitfaced, and ends up having their stomach pumped, they should pay for that service.

And someone who goes and plays a game of football on a Sunday and does themself a mischief on their ankle should too then, right? Not like anyone else inflicted it.

It's not something I personally disapprove of (well I do, but it's not the reason why they should pay - they should pay, as they are needlessly taking emergency services away from someone who might really need it)

And an injured ankle isn't the most important thing in the world either. I'm sure they could just hobble around until it fixed itself, or something.

ManicMinerUK wrote:
yeah, never mind the lifetime of national insurance contributions, or all that tax we pay, lets just dismantle the NHS and stop treating people for "self inflicted" injuries...

This is the kind of crack-pot facism that reigns nowadays though, isn't it... It's like the whole country's on a mission to see which fundamental human rights they can strip away next... disgusting, frankly..

If you think that the other option is the NHS continuing merrily supplying top class medicine with current funding you are wrong.

It will have to change to continue existing. It represents a black hole for public funding money at present

ManicMinerUK wrote:
yeah, never mind the lifetime of national insurance contributions, or all that tax we pay, lets just dismantle the NHS and stop treating people for "self inflicted" injuries...

This is the kind of crack-pot facism that reigns nowadays though, isn't it... It's like the whole country's on a mission to see which fundamental human rights they can strip away next... disgusting, frankly..

When people are having to wait months and months for an operation because the NHS is being bled dry by the reckless behaviour of people who only care about themselves, then fuck human rights.

Stickman wrote:
But by paying tax on the booze they've drunk, they have paid for that treatment.

Smokers use the same argument, but I don't agree with that. It's the people around the smokers and drinkers that are paying for their actions.

The recent July 1st ban on smoking in public areas is because the effects of passive smoking are now well know, and not accepted

A drunk getting his stomach pumped is potentially taking medical resources away from a person who genuinely facing an emergency. The idea we have an A&E "rush hour" on Friday/Saturday nights is wrong. And it seems the only real punishment most people seem to take any notice of now-a-days is if you hit them in the wallet - so fine them

speedofthepuma wrote:
If you think that the other option is the NHS continuing merrily supplying top class medicine with current funding you are wrong.

It will have to change to continue existing. It represents a black hole for public funding money at present

Oddly, I agree that the NHS is a funding black-hole but it's getting the lions share of tax money. Sad as it is, we're still behind most of Europe - not long ago it reckoned that 320+ lives are lost a day because of the poor state of the NHS. No-one reports that though.

So much money gets needlessly wasted as it trickles down... the NHS can't survive as it is, no, but the NHS needs to stop hemorrhaging it's own funds. Sadly, the money that goes in doesn't always reach the parts that need it.

But that's another issue altogether really from asking if Britain is broken. We know the NHS is broken and I think we've known it for years...

Juan - you yourself just said the papers are massively overplaying the problem, then you do the same thing in your very next post... who is waiting "months and months" for operations?

Thatcher left power quite some time ago, and waiting times for operations have been falling year on year...

Sorry, I did get a bit 'Daily Mail' there for a second. I suppose I get annoyed because the problems of the NHS have affected my family recently - my dad had to wait 9 months for an operation which was needed to correct a huge blunder by the NHS (which they failed to spot in subsequent check-ups).

In this time, his condition got very bad and if it wasn't for the swift actions of my mum, he could have lost his leg or worst case scenario, he could have died.

Again, I apologise for my sensationalism, but it only hits home how bad things can be when something happens to you or your family directly.

You seemed to be suggesting the bi-polar options. And seemed pretty bloody angry about it too.

There has to be a line. I dont think this country is broken but at present there is a real abdication of personal responsibilty. Nobody thinks they are to blame or should have to look after themselves.

I think this may be the driving forse behind some of the ideas here.

Regarding the NHS I'm afraid that the "fascist" options you bemoan hear would not have anywhere near enough of an impact to save it.

ManicMinerUK wrote:
Juan - you yourself just said the papers are massively overplaying the problem, then you do the same thing in your very next post... who is waiting "months and months" for operations?

Including non-life threatening stuff?

Anyone near me is thanks to them local NHS guys being a million or 5 in the red. So that would include both me (for minor knee surgery) and my mum (for a badly needed hip replacement that she eventually had to go private for).

kincaide wrote:Going out to play a game of rugby hardly displays the same amount of recklessness as drinking so much you pass out.

Assuming someone actually intends to pass out, that is. Of course, if they don't and it's an accident, we're back to square one. But again, where are you going to draw this line of 'acceptable recklessness'?

A drunk getting his stomach pumped is potentially taking medical resources away from a person who genuinely facing an emergency.

By the same standard many people who aren't drunk aren't emergency cases either. Should we get any non-criticals to pay for treatment for being a nuisance? Generally medical services prioritise to those who need treatment first, and it's perfectly possible that person could be drunk. I'm not going to say you're suggesting someone who's drunk shouldn't get lifesaving treatment, because I don't think you are, but to suggest that attending a drunk is a waste of resources is somewhat missing the point.

kincaide wrote:Going out to play a game of rugby hardly displays the same amount of recklessness as drinking so much you pass out.

Assuming someone actually intends to pass out, that is. Of course, if they don't and it's an accident, we're back to square one. But again, where are you going to draw this line of 'acceptable recklessness'?

A drunk getting his stomach pumped is potentially taking medical resources away from a person who genuinely facing an emergency.

By the same standard many people who aren't drunk aren't emergency cases either. Should we get any non-criticals to pay for treatment for being a nuisance? Generally medical services prioritise to those who need treatment first, and it's perfectly possible that person could be drunk. I'm not going to say you're suggesting someone who's drunk shouldn't get lifesaving treatment, because I'm not sure you are, but to suggest that attending a drunk is a waste of resources is somewhat missing the point.

Ummmm - good points. What I am trying to suggest is a way of combating the current binge-drinking culture that seems to be been out of control for awhile now. The A&E "rush hour" places a strain on medical staff and resources, that it clearly doesn't need.

Perhaps charging for specific treatments would be a better way. For example charging for pumping stomaches if intoxicated.